2016 Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

Oh that was definitely somewhat tounge-in-cheek. Obama has Libya and Syrian and Yemen and expansion in Afghanistan and I'm sure others that aren't coming to mind immediately.

[Reddy]

SS2k did not say "All," but his statement also did not qualify what he thought HC was running on beside Bill's record. He said that HC is running on her husband's record. The implication is that is all she is running on.

 

SS2k did not say she's "basically" or "mostly" or any other words that would imply that he thinks HC brings anything more to the table than Bill's presidency.

 

This.

[Reddy]

My Dad would classify this as a case of someone who can dish it out, but can't take it.

 

You are my spirit animal right now.

[Reddy]

I shouldn't have to clarify that it was not an absolute statement. If I wanted to make an absolute statement, I would have, and would have clearly done it. I swear sometimes that people have gotten trained for finding offense in everything, and don't know how to handle something that isn't.

 

To be clear. Hillary Clinton has absolutely brought the Bill Clinton Presidency into her campaign as a very clear roadmarker of the ways that she portrays she is qualified to be President. As I said earlier, this statement is no different than what George HR Bush or Al Gore did when they ran for President having worked in highly popular White Houses as a high level. Hopefully it isn't sexist to say that Al Gore ran on Bill Clinton's Presidency.

 

Because of that it is absolutely fair to judge what happened both successfully and unsuccessfully under that Presidency for its merits on this campaign. the candidate introduced that as a deciding factor, not me.

 

And yes, Hillary Clinton has a lot of her own record to run on as well. She has a long history of being on the wrong side of a lot of initial decisions, only to change her mind later on to the more politically popular point of view. A large part of her campaign is also built on temperament, and being able to make right decisions under pressure, and without foresight. That also makes things like what has happened in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine under her watch absolutely topics of relevance. It also makes her vote on Iraq important. It is easy to way you were wrong down the road, but as President the die is already cast, and being wrong isn't really a fixable thing.

 

So before the offended train departs the station again, hopefully that clears things up.

 

So she's running on her husbands legacy and only the parts of her record that support your narrative, is what I'm getting from this.

[southsider2k5]

So after Trump's billion dollar loss, Hillary has taken to asking "What kind of genius loses a billion dollars?" The funny part is that three of the six biggest losses of all time for a corporation are the same corporation. Fannie Mae.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large...fits_and_losses

[Soxbadger]

So after Trump's billion dollar loss, Hillary has taken to asking "What kind of genius loses a billion dollars?" The funny part is that three of the six biggest losses of all time for a corporation are the same corporation. Fannie Mae.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large...fits_and_losses

 

Company losing a billion dollars is a lot different than a person losing a billion. And the Fannie Mae thing makes complete sense. Their entire business was to provide loans so when the real estate market crashed they obviously stood the most to lose.

 

Trump is running on his business record. I sincerely doubt that many people would suggest that Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae in 2008, should be President. But then again, Mudd probably never personally lost $900mil, so maybe he is more qualified than Trump.

 

That being said, personal losses on taxes are not really comparable to corporate losses on taxes.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

Company losing a billion dollars is a lot different than a person losing a billion. And the Fannie Mae thing makes complete sense. Their entire business was to provide loans so when the real estate market crashed they obviously stood the most to lose.

 

Trump is running on his business record. I sincerely doubt that many people would suggest that Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae in 2008, should be President. But then again, Mudd probably never personally lost $900mil, so maybe he is more qualified than Trump.

 

That being said, personal losses on taxes to corporate losses on taxes is not really comparable.

Exactly. Which also is related to the thing a lot of Trumpeters are missing here. It's not that what he did was "wrong", or whether or not it was smart, or whether or not it was course of business.

 

It's that his approach is 100% non-repeatable in government. His entire success has rested on a combination of loans from his Dad, real estate market connections from his Dad, and a willingness to play every debt game that is legally possible. NONE of those things will help a President, and furthermore, NONE of them are related to any actual leadership skills. They are about what he was born into, combined with an all-in willingness to treat every other human being and everyone else's money as disposable.

 

I've voted for more Republicans than Democrats for President. And I do not understand one bit how anyone could even consider voting for someone this unqualified, this hate-fueled and this bigoted for f***ing Dog Catcher, let alone President.

 

I don't like Hillary Clinton, but even if you see her email server, shifting positions and snobbery in their worst possible light, she's still miles better than the orange jackwagon.

 

[southsider2k5]

It just goes to show that the governments track record in business isn't exactly stellar either. And much like bankruptcy, when government racks up losses, the losses are paid by somebody else.

[StrangeSox]

OTOH the single biggest annual gain shown in that same link you posted was...Fannie Mae in 2013.

[StrangeSox]

Exactly. Which also is related to the thing a lot of Trumpeters are missing here. It's not that what he did was "wrong", or whether or not it was smart, or whether or not it was course of business.

 

It's that his approach is 100% non-repeatable in government. His entire success has rested on a combination of loans from his Dad, real estate market connections from his Dad, and a willingness to play every debt game that is legally possible. NONE of those things will help a President, and furthermore, NONE of them are related to any actual leadership skills. They are about what he was born into, combined with an all-in willingness to treat every other human being and everyone else's money as disposable.

 

I've voted for more Republicans than Democrats for President. And I do not understand one bit how anyone could even consider voting for someone this unqualified, this hate-fueled and this bigoted for f***ing Dog Catcher, let alone President.

 

I don't like Hillary Clinton, but even if you see her email server, shifting positions and snobbery in their worst possible light, she's still miles better than the orange jackwagon.

 

Donald "King of Debt" Trump suggested exactly that sort of thing over the summer when he floated the idea of "renegotiating" outstanding US debts (American citizens are the single largest holder of US debt by far).

[Soxbadger]

Exactly. Which also is related to the thing a lot of Trumpeters are missing here. It's not that what he did was "wrong", or whether or not it was smart, or whether or not it was course of business.

 

It's that his approach is 100% non-repeatable in government. His entire success has rested on a combination of loans from his Dad, real estate market connections from his Dad, and a willingness to play every debt game that is legally possible. NONE of those things will help a President, and furthermore, NONE of them are related to any actual leadership skills. They are about what he was born into, combined with an all-in willingness to treat every other human being and everyone else's money as disposable.

 

I've voted for more Republicans than Democrats for President. And I do not understand one bit how anyone could even consider voting for someone this unqualified, this hate-fueled and this bigoted for f***ing Dog Catcher, let alone President.

 

I don't like Hillary Clinton, but even if you see her email server, shifting positions and snobbery in their worst possible light, she's still miles better than the orange jackwagon.

 

Outside of messages boards I dont really talk a lot of politics because generally people see me as contrarian (ie in a group full of Democrtas Ill argue that Bush wasnt as bad as they make him out to be) and I usually get annoyed with how people back the "home" team (whether its Republican or Democrat) despite the hypocrisy. But when it comes to Trump, I feel like I have some sort of duty to try and make a difference.

 

Its not that I like Hillary, I voted for Obama and against her, its just that even at Hillary's worst, she is just like every other President. And while everyone likes to b**** about the other sides President and how they ruined things, the reality is that as long as they arent a complete dumpster fire, the US is likely going to be okay. Trump is the first candidate who I seriously think could really mess things up. And I hate to give him that credit, I hate to think that somehow 1 person could screw up everything. But every time I listen to him or try to find some sort of kernel of hope that maybe he wont be so bad, he just doubles down on insanity. Its not even the "Trust me" used car salesman gimmick, its the seemingly manic side of him that just cant let s*** go. Its one thing when hes going off on a rant against ex pageant winners, but what happens if Duterte insults him or any other leader? Is he just going to sit there and take it? Or is he going to go off the deep end and do something that you cant take back.

 

It just goes to show that the governments track record in business isn't exactly stellar either. And much like bankruptcy, when government racks up losses, the losses are paid by somebody else.

 

The US govt is in the govt business, not money making business (whether you think this is good or bad is a matter of opinion). The fact is that the US has never had to go BK, which technically is a better track record than Trump. So far all the s*** talking about how brilliant Trump is, technically the US Govt is a more successful business. And I am not even counting the argument that the services the US provides to its citizens may be "priceless."

 

[southsider2k5]

Obama took the most extreme aspects of the Bush foreign policy and pushed it forward.

 

Bush bombed: Afghanistain, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya

Obama bombed: Afghanistain, Iraq (started a new war there), Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Somalia.

 

What's your basis for your argument?

 

 

State Department lost 6 billion up until the point she stepped down.

 

Trump's financial is pretty awful though.

 

And as SecState/Senator, Hillary Clinton was on board for all of it... until she wasn't.

[StrangeSox]

Obama took the most extreme aspects of the Bush foreign policy and pushed it forward.

 

Bush bombed: Afghanistain, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya

Obama bombed: Afghanistain, Iraq (started a new war there), Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Somalia.

 

What's your basis for your argument?

 

Didn't pull a mega-blunder like invading Iraq in the first place.

[caulfield12]

It just goes to show that the governments track record in business isn't exactly stellar either. And much like bankruptcy, when government racks up losses, the losses are paid by somebody else.

 

That auto bailout paid the government a much higher rate of return than, for example, investing in itself (quantitative easing/buying more Treasuries.). Not to mention the value to the GDP of saving most of those jobs...

 

How have the privatized, for profit prisons run better, for example?

Edited October 4, 2016 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

Obama took the most extreme aspects of the Bush foreign policy and pushed it forward.

 

Bush bombed: Afghanistain, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya

Obama bombed: Afghanistain, Iraq (started a new war there), Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Somalia.

 

What's your basis for your argument?

 

 

State Department lost 6 billion up until the point she stepped down.

 

Trump's financial is pretty awful though.

 

Is the State Department responsible for balancing the federal budget? And how does the State Department increase revenue?

 

And as SecState/Senator, Hillary Clinton was on board for all of it... until she wasn't.

 

You know people can legitimately change their minds. Like when Trump was a Republican, then a Democrat, then a Republican. Or when Trump married Ivana or Marla. Or when Trump was pro-choice.

 

Anyone who claims that they have never changed their opinion is likely a liar or an idiot. Anyone who doesnt change their position when given facts that should convince them to change, is an idiot.

 

I say this because I myself am a total flip-flopper. I know I know, this is political suicide, but when I was in Jr High I debated on the side of pro-life and against any form of gun control. I guess I should have blindly stayed true to what I originally believed in, but as I learned more, I decided that perhaps my original positions were not correct.

 

Again I know that this will disqualify me from ever being a politician, because it is the end of the world if anyone ever changes their mind.

 

This all has just gotten beyond ridiculous.

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama took the most extreme aspects of the Bush foreign policy and pushed it forward.

 

Bush bombed: Afghanistain, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya

Obama bombed: Afghanistain, Iraq (started a new war there), Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Somalia.

 

What's your basis for your argument?

 

I think you are 100% aware how this is not a valid argument. Bush STARTED wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - Obama was left with the back end of it, trying to ramp down from disaster scenarios in both (regardless of whether each or both made sense at the time of decision, they were horribly executed). To put Obama on equal footing with Bush on those topics is without any kind of logic.

 

Oh and the Yemen and Pakistan stuff, Bush did those too and seemingly more often. And Somalia wasn't bombed by either beyond a couple very small events.

 

Now Libya and Syria, Obama owns those campaigns, for good or bad. The rest of your examples are not arguments against Obama in any material way.

 

Bush's adventure into Iraq is what really opened the floodgates and eventually, in part, led to the Arab Springs. He opened Pandora's Box. I'm of the belief that Bush wasn't an awful President, and in fact if you take away Iraq, I think he was pretty average. But Iraq was a politically cataclysmic decision that continues to rock us, and the Middle East and really the world, to this day.

 

[southsider2k5]

Is the State Department responsible for balancing the federal budget? And how does the State Department increase revenue?

 

 

 

You know people can legitimately change their minds. Like when Trump was a Republican, then a Democrat, then a Republican. Or when Trump married Ivana or Marla. Or when Trump was pro-choice.

 

Anyone who claims that they have never changed their opinion is likely a liar or an idiot. Anyone who doesnt change their position when given facts that should convince them to change, is an idiot.

 

I say this because I myself am a total flip-flopper. I know I know, this is political suicide, but when I was in Jr High I debated on the side of pro-life and against any form of gun control. I guess I should have blindly stayed true to what I originally believed in, but as I learned more, I decided that perhaps my original positions were not correct.

 

Again I know that this will disqualify me from ever being a politician, because it is the end of the world if anyone ever changes their mind.

 

This all has just gotten beyond ridiculous.

 

I can't believe anyone would truly think that Trump and Clinton were undergoing true changes of heart, and not manipulating a situation for a personal gain.

[Soxbadger]

I can't believe anyone would truly think that Trump and Clinton were undergoing true changes of heart, and not manipulating a situation for a personal gain.

 

I dont know. But what I do know is both of them do the same thing, so its not really a needle mover. Its just like when Bush got crucified for "no new taxes". If something is the right thing to do, you do it, you dont hurt everyone to just prove that you are "trustworthy." And that seems to be completely lost by everyone.

[southsider2k5]

I dont know. But what I do know is both of them do the same thing, so its not really a needle mover. Its just like when Bush got crucified for "no new taxes". If something is the right thing to do, you do it, you dont hurt everyone to just prove that you are "trustworthy." And that seems to be completely lost by everyone.

 

You are making the assumption that these were done for trustworthy reasons. I do not believe that. Not for a second. Especially because none of the decisions made were in a particularly brave political stance, in fact they ALL were made towards the politically favorable stance. That just screams red flag, not change of heart.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Guccifer 2.0 is back and hacked the Clinton Foundation server today. This just occurred so people are digging.

 

The Clinton Foundation appears (in the very least) to be tracking donations vs TARP money handed out by the government

 

 

Not sure why they would be doing that...

Edited October 4, 2016 by Buehrle>Wood

[Jenksismyhero]

You are making the assumption that these were done for trustworthy reasons. I do not believe that. Not for a second. Especially because none of the decisions made were in a particularly brave political stance, in fact they ALL were made towards the politically favorable stance. That just screams red flag, not change of heart.

 

You're telling me this person isn't 100% authentic?!

 

 

 

You can almost read her mind: "what the f*** is going on here? Oh God, she's grabbing my hand. Keep your composure, keep your composure! Look moved but not TOO moved. Ok, ok. Nailed it."

Edited October 4, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[Soxbadger]

You are making the assumption that these were done for trustworthy reasons. I do not believe that. Not for a second. Especially because none of the decisions made were in a particularly brave political stance, in fact they ALL were made towards the politically favorable stance. That just screams red flag, not change of heart.

 

I am not making any assumptions. I never said anything about Trumps or Hillarys motives. I merely said that people get too caught up in someone changing positions, instead of trying to determine if the change of position is good or bad.

[southsider2k5]

I am not making any assumptions. I never said anything about Trumps or Hillarys motives. I merely said that people get too caught up in someone changing positions, instead of trying to determine if the change of position is good or bad.

 

That is all secondary to the fact that the initial decision is WAY more important when you are President. You don't get the luxury of changing your mind down the road to a more politically friendly decision. That history of making wrong decisions is more vital than in any other job. THAT is why it is important here. You can't unbomb a country.

[bigruss]

<!--quoteo(post=3431361:date=Oct 4, 2016 -> 03:12 PM:name=southsider2k5)-->

<!--quotec-->You are making the assumption that these were done for trustworthy reasons. I do not believe that. Not for a second. Especially because none of the decisions made were in a particularly brave political stance, in fact they ALL were made towards the politically favorable stance. That just screams red flag, not change of heart.

 

You're telling me this person isn't 100% authentic?!

 

 

 

You can almost read her mind: "what the f*** is going on here? Oh God, she's grabbing my hand. Keep your composure, keep your composure! Look moved but not TOO moved. Ok, ok. Nailed it."

I'm not sure if I ever felt more awkward than watching that, wtf was Blige thinking?

[Soxbadger]

That is all secondary to the fact that the initial decision is WAY more important when you are President. You don't get the luxury of changing your mind down the road to a more politically friendly decision. That history of making wrong decisions is more vital than in any other job. THAT is why it is important here. You can't unbomb a country.

 

Well that presupposes that people put the same amount of thought into every decision (which I dont necessarily think is true.) It also would be more problematic for Trump than Hillary because Trump completely switched political ideologies at least 1 time as compared to Hillary just doing dumb things that everyone else was doing (not that "everyone else is doing it" is a good excuse, just better than completely changing who you are.)